Seeking physical and online resources; books; articles; etc. concerning the history, public (and private) images and (current) location of the root text sources comprising the Pali Cannon

Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator? Do Buddhists in general also believe there is no supreme being, or do they settle on that there is no intervening supreme being? Are these the Buddha's thoughts or a deductive conclusion from some type of logical reasoning? If they are mainly the Buddha's, how come they are generally accepted - as far as I understand it, he encouraged everyone to not take his word for anything, but instead seek the truth for themselves? As you understand I'm a total Buddhist noob, please correct me where I'm wrong and clarify where needed!

My question is related to the quote below taken from Chapter 29 of The Diamond Sutra. Can you provide any references for other explanations for this quote or can you provide your own explanation? > “Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or > going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the > principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression > ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is > never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is > merely an expression, a figure of speech.” As I understand from my current practise, there have been many instances I've been walking and I am aware that there is nowhere I'm walking to, and nowhere I'm walking from and no reference for somebody walking. I can then only discern beyond forms and see that there is only what I perceive to be a stillness in which there is neither time, distance and dimension. I don't know what is doing the perceiving in this instance or if anything at all is being perceived. If I am able to put this into a language there must be a perceiver beyond all forms or that my conceptual mind is doing this perceiving. In the latter case I would be being fooled by mental perceptions. Out of curiosity and using consciously directed thought I experimented with this experience by watching a seagull flying through the air. Within several seconds I removed the earth and the rest of the universe. The seagull was bouncing its wings and orienting on the spot. From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and time seems intrinsically bound to distance and dimension. That's as far as I got. It may seem that I'm bordering on nihilism here, but on the contrary: there is the use of form to make the deeper discovery. Form seems to be the substrate to depth of knowledge but in this case it seems like I haven't learnt anything.

Does anyone know if one can fall asleep into a dream while in the process of mindful insight practice and still maintain mindfulness and concentration? This would be different than establishing mindfulness while dreaming.

I noticed a reply Andrei made on a post on the results of meditating, that you become aware in your sleep while dreaming, so that your mind knows it's a dream: - [Mindfulness during sleep](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/2855/254) - [Do Arhats sleep?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/92/254) This is a major confirmation sign of correct practice in Ancient Daoism (which i've been reading for years now, not knowing which is correct practice) -- and i would like Andrei's advice (and whoever else would like to share their insight) on practice technique and how you have managed to get to this advanced level.

I'd like to try and categorize the abhidhammic view into either as an internalist or externalist or know if it's possible at all, knowing how the historical Buddha himself even refused to either ultimately deny or agree with the usual problem that would easily decide this issue. As far as I understand my main problem is that cetasikas seem to imply an externalist view (citta comes into contact with something, they also rise and disappear with citta together) because according to externalism, for a mind content to arise, *it is necessary to be related to the environment in the right way*. Citta itself seems to be an intrinsic property though, as far as every agent is capable of knowing something. This strongly implies an internalist viewpoint (there are intrinsic and unique properties of agents that mental contents supervene upon), as *our contents are individuated by the properties of our bodies*.

Although the 5 aggregates seem to fully explain my experience, is it wrong view if I think that there might be more?

Back to basics. If asked, “why meditate,” perhaps responding with the question, “why breathe,” may get to the heart of the question? Recalling some worthwhile answers: — In order to properly respond when required — So as not to miss the tiny flowers on one’s walk — To see things as they truly and actually are

"Not doing" in this sense is to mean the absence of any form of action that originates from thought (for instance physical form like speech, bodily movements) in such a way that reduces the physical forms impact upon sentient beings in its environment. I realise that I'm heading into one of the unconjecturables here but for practical purposes. I don't think it'll lead me to vexation. This curiosity has arisen through partial insight into karmic laws in which the knowledge of karma became demystified into a rather obvious, almost mechanistic natural working of things. I wanted to try to understand at least from the periphery of the insight, from what Buddha said and from what others practising Buddhism understand so that I can cross-reference the three. **Additional** In an example from the Buddha, he chose not to be a father to his son, Rahula (not doing) in favour of seeking his own liberation. His thoughts were of himself. I imagine this would have caused considerable discomfort in Rahula and this discomfort would have been further compounded when Rahula learned of the meaning to his name: fetter or ball and chain. In an example from my own experience, a person became quite angry with me last week. I remained calm and non-responsive, guarding the senses - essentially watching after myself. I still gave a portion of my attention to the person via eye contact. Because of my "not doing" they became more frustrated. I recall thinking, "this person is lost in their emotions". I received a message from them later that day saying they had cried and let it go. *As I write this addition, Andrei's answer below seems to resonate here.

I think I have to tolerate memories of previous lives. And I know many of which memories are combination of true and false memories.Part of the memories are scientifically superimposed by army or any research department of the government.It is pointless to try to get rid of these memories.Are scientific memories good or bad for me? or are these cinematic experiments artificial intelligence based?

Suppose I am really serious about following the path of Vajrayana Buddhism o the point of studying texts in their original and I speak only English. I assume that the best language to learn would be Tibetan. Is this correct? What other languages would be relevant for this? For example, if you would like to study the various forms and schools of Christian thought, I would recommend learning mostly Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but also some Aramaic, Russian and German, in their ancient versions. If, instead of Vajrayana, I wanted to follow the path of Mahayana, I would assume some kind of ancient Mandarin was the way to go. I assume that this is analogous for Theravada and Pali. For each school of Buddhism, what would be the best languages to learn in order to be able to study the bulk of the canon associated to that school in its original and why?

Does a cause depend on its effect? If so then it seems especially difficult to think about nothingness being made or created. This is almost the exact opposite of a question I have asked recently (I'm locked out and looking into that), but not quite. It's usually said that the cause does depend on the cause, in some way > Nāgārjuna argues that cause and effect cannot be substantially > distinct. This is because the effect depends existentially on the > cause (if the cause did not exist the effect would not exist) and > cause depends at least notionally on the effect (if there was no > effect the cause would not be called “cause”). The kind of > independence demanded by substantial existence, by existence by > svabhāva, is simply not available for things which are cause and > effect. But what this notional dependence means I'm not totally sure. I'm not asking about nothingness, and am not saying that sunyata is nothingness! That could only be the case if the absolute truth is that nothing exists.

Buddha says in saṃyuktāgama : > “One who craves for and delights in bodily form, craves for and > delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha will not > attain liberation from dukkha. In the same way one who craves for and > delights in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, craves > for and delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha > will not attain liberation from dukkha. Clearly Buddha did not hesitate to say "One who craves for dukkha will not attain liberation from dukkha". The "One who craves " should not be a valid statement because Dhamma says we can not frame statements like the above. We can only ask or say depending upon what the craving arises or ceases. Following is what Buddha had to say on the matter : > “Venerable sir, who craves?” > > “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One > craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a > valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus. > Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with > what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid > question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition, > craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with > clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole > mass of suffering.’ There is some contradiction is framing the statements above. One statement statement says 'One who craves'( a self is implied) and the other statement says it is invalid to ask 'who craves' instead we should ask depending upon what the craving comes to be(no self is implied)? My question is : Is it correct to say 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?

I've noticed reference to the 28 Yaksha Generals in several texts. To my current knowledge, the Mahāmāyūrīvidyārājñī Sūtra and the 卍新纂續藏經 Vol. 02, No. 183 (二十八夜叉大軍王名號) are the only text that explicitly lists them. Are there any other extant material that lists the names of these generals? Many thanks.

I recall reading or hearing, I don't know how long ago, that the Buddha knew the God that many religions believe is the creator. The story is that this powerful, long lived God was around when the universe came into existence and believed he was responsible for the creation. But I've not been able to recall or find the the source. Is there such a story in any of the Buddhist writings or commentaries?

I often hear it being said that with meditation/mindfulness we observe the thoughts and feelings coming and going but I'm not sure if this is a clear explanation of what occurs because in my experience of practicing for over 6 years I don't think I have ever actually seen a thought arising. What happens with me is that I recognise that my mind is lost in a thought and once I do then the thought ends. This is different to noticing the arising. So I'm following breath, lost in thought, come back to breath, lost in thought etc. I can intentionally say to myself "ok now I'm going to think about ...." And in this way I can observe the process of thinking but unless I do this I don't see how its possible to see a random thought arising. Is this correct? If this is not correct then why in 6 years can I still not do this? The recognition of random thought is always in past tense.

I believe in karma and rebirth but I don’t understand one thing. How does five precepts give you merits? Isn’t it only preventing bad karma? If you don’t kill any living beings or don’t steal anything then how do you get merits when you are not doing anything. You are only preventing bad karma.

What is meant by the “threefold bliss” in the verses of sharing and aspiration: > Through the goodness that arises from my practice, May my spiritual teachers and guides of great virtue, My mother, my father and my relatives, The Sun and the Moon, and all virtuous leaders of the world – May the highest gods and evil forces; Celestial beings, guardian spirits of the Earth and the Lord of Death; May those who are friendly, indifferent or hostile; May all beings receive the blessings of my life. **May they soon attain the threefold bliss and realise the Deathless.** Through the goodness that arises from my practice, And through this act of sharing, May all desires and attachments quickly cease And all harmful states of mind. Until I realise Nibbana, In every kind of birth, may I have an upright mind With mindfulness and wisdom, austerity and vigour. May the forces of delusion not take hold nor weaken my resolve. The Buddha is my excellent refuge, Unsurpassed is the protection of the Dhamma, The Solitary Buddha is my noble Lord, The Sangha is my supreme support. Through the supreme power of all these, May darkness and delusion be dispelled. via http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/monastic/imina.htm

I have heard that Buddha explained how the world is recreated after a destruction, in *Aggan̄n̄a Sutta*. > One tale told by the Buddha in the Aggan̄n̄a Sutta describes the process of recreation on this grand scale. An old world-system has just been destroyed, and its inhabitants are reborn in a new system. To begin with they are spirits, floating happily above the earth, luminescent and without form, name or sex. The world in these early stages is without light or land, only water. Eventually earth appears and the spirits come to taste and enjoy it. Their greed causes their ethereal bodies to become solid and coarse and differentiate into male and female, good-looking and ugly. As they lose their luminescence the sun and moon come into being.Gradually the beings fall into further wicked habits, causing themselves - and the earth itself - to become less pleasant. **Source- BBC** However, the modern science describes the creation of the world in a different way. According to scientists, the first life on earth started in water. Later these water animals came to land and evolved to the types of animals that we see today. It is said that the humans evolved from monkeys. It's evident that Dinosaurs lived on earth before humans. **Which explanation is true? Buddha's or Scientists'?** Did Buddha lie When explaining the creation of the world because the people at that time didn't understand these scientific facts? Very sorry for my bad English.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking because I consider myself a great person etc., Chakravartin , but why didn't the Buddha take solipsism seriously, perhaps before his complete enlightenment? If he's so great then how can it be that we, everyone else, are so little? Was it, perhaps, because he was born a prince, or there was no history of solipsism in India at the time, or what, really? I think it *could* just beyond the powers of imagination to get inside a mahasattva's head, so to speak.